From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Force TLB invalidation for
	erratum on 830/845 BLT
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:12:30 +0100
Message-ID: <1334567565_6454@CP5-2952>
References: <1334566397-9110-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<1334566397-9110-2-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<20120416090213.GC4199@phenom.ffwll.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from fireflyinternet.com (smtp.fireflyinternet.com [109.228.6.236])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B089C9E7EB
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 16 Apr 2012 02:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120416090213.GC4199@phenom.ffwll.local>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:02:13 +0200, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:53:17AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On 830/845, the BLT unit invalidates the wrong PTE in its TLB after the
> > GATT is updated. A simple solution is then to always invalidate the TLB
> > of the BLT prior to each execbuffer.
> > 
> > This does appear to improve the stability slighty, but I am still seeing
> > spurious GPU deaths under memory pressure.
> > 
> > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26345
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> 
> In the light of the eventual gpu domain tracking removal, can't we just
> unconditionally set these bit in the new gen2_render_ring_flush function?
> Or is it indeed to expensive?

Of course you can, I have done any measurements to see if any harm is
going to come from extra flushes between batches, as we invariably have
to flush anyway.

Just remember that invalidate+flush 2 step when removing the flush tracking...
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre